Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only/open-world/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context: 0.10 USDC per call, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON args and path, and an explicit statement that it cannot sign, submit, transfer or spend. This is rich disclosure well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is dense and partly redundant, e.g. the convoluted 'API access billing is separate from wallet visibility...' sentence. Several billing/auth clauses repeat rather than sharpen the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid read-only tool with no output schema, it covers cost, free tier, auth header binding, and safety limits, and it defers return-value schemas to /api/treasury-contract and the 402 body. It is close to self-contained, only leaning on external endpoints for the response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already documents the EIP-55 checksum requirement. The description's restatement of 'must use the exact EIP-55 checksum' adds emphasis but no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a wallet's native USDC balance and ETH balance for gas visibility on Base mainnet.' An agent can tell this apart from flow-oriented siblings like wever_treasury-flows. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied ('for gas visibility') and it points to /api/treasury-contract and the 402 body for schemas, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives, nor any when-not condition. Guidance is present but inferential.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.